The UN’s highest court gives a historical statement about a Climate change Wednesday, a decision that could set a legal yardstick for measures for the climate crisis on the globe.
After years of lobbying through in need of protective islands that fear that they could disappear under rising sea waters, the General Assembly of the UN demanded the International Court of Justice in 2023 for an advisory statement, an non -binding but important basis for international obligations.
A body of 15 judges was commissioned to answer two questions. First, what do the countries have to oblige under international law to protect the climate and the environment from humans caused by people? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments if their actions or lack of measures have significantly violated the climate and the environment?
“The missions could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is at stake,” said Arnold Kiel Loughman, Attorney General of the Inselstation Vanuatu, the court in a week of hearing in December.
In the decades to 2023, sea level rose by a global average of 1.7 inches (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific rise even higher. The world has also heated 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) since the pre -industrial period due to the combustion of fossil fuels.
Get daily national news
Get the most important news of the day, political, economic and current headlines that are delivered to your inbox once a day.
Vanuatu belongs to a group of small states that push into the climate crisis on international legal interventions, but it affects many other islands in the South Pacific.
“The agreements between the states are not moving quickly enough,” said Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatus Minister of Climate Change, the Associated Press.
Every decision by the court based in Haag would not be binding advice and not able to put wealthy nations directly into practice to support fighting countries. However, it would be more than just a powerful symbol, since it could serve as the basis for other legal acts, including domestic complaints.
“What makes this case so important is that he deals with the past, the present and the future of the climate aperos. It is not just about future goals, but also about historical responsibility because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,” said Joie Chowdhury, a senior lawyer at the center for international environmental law, towards AP.
Activists could file a complaint against their own countries because they could not adhere to the decision, and the states could return to the International Court of Justice in order to be held accountable. And whatever the judges say is used as the basis for other legal instruments such as investment agreements, said Chowdhury.
The United States and Russia, both of which are important oil production countries, are decisive against the court that prescribes the emission reductions.
A simple edition of the court is the youngest in a number of legal victories for the small islands. At the beginning of this month, the Inter -American Court of Human Rights found that the federal states have a legal obligation not only to avoid environmental damage, but also to protect and restore the protection and restoration of ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights decided that the countries had to better protect their people from the consequences of climate change.
In 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands achieved the first major statutory profit for climate activities when the judges decided that protection against the potentially devastating effects of climate change was human right and the government has the obligation to protect its citizens.
& copy the Canadian press in 2025
